Re: TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)

Kathryn Tomasek-2
Hi everybody,

Thanks, Martin, for pointing to the MEDEA project website.

Georg Vogeler at the Centre for Information Modeling, Austrian Center for Digital Humanities, University of Graz, is working on the MEDEA ontology. You can find his work on github: https://github.com/GVogeler/bookkeeping

Basically, the idea is to choose whatever markup seems best for your document--list, table, div, p--and then use @ana to add references to the bookkeeping ontology:

#bk_entry
#bk_amount
#bk_quantity
#bk_what
#bk_to
#bk_from
#bk_credit
#bk_between
#bk_transfer

Either Georg or I will be happy to say more. His most recent publication shows some examples, and we have an article under review for DSH, with another going in to JTEI. The latter has some examples of markup from my work on the Wheaton Family Papers.

Vogeler, Georg.  2016. “The Content of Accounts and Registers in their Digital Edition. XML/TEI, Spreadsheets, and Semantic Web Technologies”, in: Edition von Rechnungen und  Amtsbüchern, ed. by Jürgen Sarnowksy, V&R Unipress (available in print and e-text).

Hope this is helpful.

Kathryn

Kathryn Tomasek
Associate Professor of History
Wheaton College
Norton, Massachusetts
@KathrynTomasek

Our Wheaton College was founded as a school for the higher education of women in 1834.
Our Wheaton College is committed to individual, academic, and religious freedom.

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:00 AM, TEI-L automatic digest system <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are 18 messages totaling 1491 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. div and p (8)
  2. Dictionaries, practical question (3)
  3. Remove from listserv
  4. <no subject>
  5. unsubscribe
  6. How to leave the list
  7. spam on the TEI list
  8. MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts (2)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:28:43 -0500
From:    Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
div,p are quite common in the wild. The possible strategies (some
of which in some cases amounted to kludges) were, as I instructed
the editors, basically four:

1. wrap the concluding bits in a semi-artificial div, without heading,
e.g. div type="conclusion" or type="envoi" etc.

   <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="conclusion"><p/><p/>...</>
   </div>


2. wrap the bulk of the containing div -- the divved chunk in the
middle -- in a floatingText element and leave the paragraphs before
and after it as loose p elements

    <div type="chapter>
    <p>
    <p>
    <floatingText type="body_of_chapter">
       <body>
       <div type="section"><head>...</>
       <div type="section"><head>...</>
       </body>
     </floatingText>
     <p>
     <p>
     </div>

(In some cases you can substitute one of the other
almost-floating-text elements such as list, table,
q, quote, or figure)

3. squeeze the concluding bits of the div into one of the
more generous div-liminal tags, e.g. argument, closer,
or (our local custom element) tailnote.

  <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <argument>
          <p>
          <p>
      </argument>
   </div>

4. Put the concluding paragraphs into a sibling div and
type it appropriately

  <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
   </div>
   <div type="chapter_appendix">
          <p>
          <p>
   </div>


pfs

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 19:32, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Thanks, it is indeed a very clear answer to my question.
>
> I am a little confused, though, by the idea that, within section 4,
> section 4.1 may be preceded by some loose paragraphs not belonging to it,
> while section 4.3 could not be followed by the same loose paragraph(s).
> In my understanding, it's a fairly common practice: the paragraphs at the
> beginning serve as a sort of introduction or captatio benevolentiae for
> the whole of section 4, and the final paragraphs at the end serve as a
> sort of conclusion to the entire section 4, and what we would call in
> French a "transition" to section 5.
>
> I'm assuming that you are going to object that, if the last paragraph of
> section 4 is a conclusion I should just wrap it in a <div
> xml:id="conclusion_4">. Fair enough, but then, why am I forced to do that
> for the conclusion, while I have the choice to leave the introduction as
> a loose paragraph?
>
> I'll add that I am annoyed by this rule because I'm currently writing
> several chapters using the jTEI schema (requirement from the editor), and
> in this schema a <div> MUST have a <head>. Normally, I would wrap my
> final, conclusive/transitive paragraph in a <div> (just because of the
> rule described above) and I wouldn't think about it anymore, but I REALLY
> do not want my little paragraph to have a title - that would be against
> all conventions of Western typography.
>
> Best regards,
> Marjorie
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>,
> [hidden email]
> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 01:13:06
> Objet: Re: div and p
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.
>
> When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual
> structure
> was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a
> book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in
> chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have
> some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1.  But in conventional
> Western
> typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3
> (say)
> ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some
> paragraphs
> belonging to chapter 4.  An explicit or other closing, maybe.  But not
> paragraphs
> of normal text.
>
> One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional
> Western
> typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the
> beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did
> want to
> have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put
> to
> it to figure out how to get the idea across.  (This assumes that you were
> able
> to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.)
>
> Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what
> he
> argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still
> claim now)
> never to have seen.  But his example was also interpretable as a labeled
> list
> in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs.  There was text
> after
> the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part
> of the last
> labeled item.  But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid
> paragraphs
> after lists.
>
> If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section
> / subsection
> style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling.
> Which makes
> me curious:  what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to
> want
> paragraphs after the last subordinate div?  (Would ab do the trick?)
>
> I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as
> sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question.
>
>
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Library Production Service
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:31:49 +0000
From:    Mörth, Karlheinz <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question

Hi Paul,

There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system

Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was created as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography) Cost Action by very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek, Tiberius): Bibliography –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related software
http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf

The Viennese Lexicographic Editor (VLE) is a Windows standalone application which we have been developing for quite some time now. Several smaller dictionaries were done with it. The most recent one is:
https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/tunis_dict__v002.html (prod. server; link will change)

Others you can find on the Vienna-Corpus-of-Arabic-Varieties (VICAV) website:
https://vicav.acdh.oeaw.ac.at

VLE is a general-purpose XML editor enhanced by functionalities typically needed in editing lexical data. We have compiled all our dictionaries in TEI. If you want to see details of the encoding, have a look here:
https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html

VLE makes use of various XML technologies, e.g. XSLT, XPath, XQuery. It has a number of useful features which were needed in our projects (validation against XML Schema, visualisation through customizable XSLT in all parts of the system, sound recording etc). Recent versions are tightly integrated with the BaseX database which makes it easy to set up local instances. We also have implemented versioning. It comes with a tokenEditor that allows to furnish corpora with dictionary IDs. Recently we have been working on an Application Creator module which helps to create web applications by means of a very simple wizard.

Due to time pressure, VLE is still scarcely documented although we have been working on this. It is freely available. If you want to try it, get in touch. I am happy to help. VLE is an ongoing project.

All the best

Charly
________________________________________________
Karlheinz Moerth
Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities
Austrian Academy of Sciences
Sonnenfelsgasse 19/2nd floor
1010 Wien
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B43%201%2051581-2220" value="+431515812220">+43 1 51581-2220



-----Original Message-----
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Piotr Banski
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:22 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question

I have worked with FLEx and FLEx-generated XML, first preparing a large
corpus-derived dictionary for FLEx ingestion and then iterating on that.
It can be done with only a minor headache as you learn the underlying
format and then e.g. discover the differences between particular versions.

I don't really see an ontological platform for comparing FLEx vs. TEI.
FLEx is a 'machine`, TEI is a metaformat. I'd take FLEx for
lexicographic work and then worry about potential export to TEI (or
rather transformation from FLEx export). Or even attempt to go both
ways, if the initial data are in TEI, but then, maintaining references
could be a challenge.

I have planned to check out the Viennese Lexicographic Editor[1], and
even managed to run it under Linux, but got stuck afterwards. It is
definitely worth trying for some lexicographic tasks, especially when
it's gotten more documentation.

[1] http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/de/vle

Good luck,

   Piotr


On 01/11/2017 10:55 PM, Patrick Sahle wrote:
>
> I had a similar discussion only today: a colleague wants to create from
> a 18th century manuscript a multi language lexicon using FieldWorks/FLEx
> (http://fieldworks.sil.org/). I tried to convince him on the advantages
> using TEI would have but didn't get through. I see his arguments for an
> easy to use tool that is established in his field. But I am concerned
> about the loss of information about the material, visual and structural
> aspects of the documents. We are now discussing into two directions:
> - would it be possible to convert from FLEx to (sufficiently information
> rich) TEI in the end? Mainly for interoperability reasons ...
> - would it be wise to go from TEI to FLEx (keeping more information from
> the documents, but working without an easy editing tool)?
>
> Any experiences on this around?
>
> Best, Patrick
>
> Am 11.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Paul Schaffner:
>> Hi all, this is not strictly TEI, as you'll see, but I suspect there are
>> a number of lexicographers here. I was asked yesterday by someone
>> compiling a Latin dictionary if there was a standard (perhaps
>> database-type) piece of application software in which to compile, edit,
>> and search it. He is (sigh) using Microsoft Word at the moment, and has
>> rejected the usual filemaker-type databases as not sufficiently
>> supportive of word-processor-type formatting (multiple languages and
>> fonts, etc.) I of course pointed out that the chief desideratum for
>> future functionality was to distinguish unambiguously between different
>> structurally distinct pieces of each entry; that XML was a good vehicle
>> for recording the sort of mixture of fielded, normalized and free-form
>> text typical of dictionaries; that XML could be entered, searched, and
>> edited in any number of applications, from Access forms to simple text
>> editors; and that TEI did have a functional dictionaries module which
>> was worth considering. I am investigating further as to what he actually
>> hopes to do with the data, which makes a big difference.
>>
>> But in the meantime: is there in fact a popular software choice amongst
>> working lexicographers? (To the extent that anything used by
>> lexicographers could be called 'popular'!)
>>
>> pfs
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle
> Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen
> Akademie der Wissenschaften
> Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/>
> Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/>
> DiXiT ITN <http://www.dixit.uni-koeln.de/>
> Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de>
>
> Postanschrift: Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH), Universität zu
> Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln
> Büro: Meister-Ekkehart-Str. 11, Raum 2.04; Telefon: <a href="tel:%2B49%20-%20%280%29221%20-%20470%203894" value="+492214703894">+49 - (0)221 - 470 3894

--
Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
Senior Researcher,
Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
R5 6-13
68-161 Mannheim, Germany

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:33:00 -0700
From:    "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> div,p are quite common in the wild.

Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
common”.

Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?
Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
common” mean, quantitatively?

And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
of a new subdivision of its own?


********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:41:41 +0100
From:    Christian Grün <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question

VLE (dictionary writing system), »recent versions are tightly
integrated with the BaseX«…
____________________________________

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:31 PM, Mörth, Karlheinz
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system
>
> Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was created as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography) Cost Action by very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek, Tiberius): Bibliography –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related software
> http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf
>
> The Viennese Lexicographic Editor (VLE) is a Windows standalone application which we have been developing for quite some time now. Several smaller dictionaries were done with it. The most recent one is:
> https://basex-dev.eos.arz.oeaw.ac.at/dict_api/tunico/tunis_dict__v002.html (prod. server; link will change)
>
> Others you can find on the Vienna-Corpus-of-Arabic-Varieties (VICAV) website:
> https://vicav.acdh.oeaw.ac.at
>
> VLE is a general-purpose XML editor enhanced by functionalities typically needed in editing lexical data. We have compiled all our dictionaries in TEI. If you want to see details of the encoding, have a look here:
> https://clarin.oeaw.ac.at/lrp/dict-gate/docs.html
>
> VLE makes use of various XML technologies, e.g. XSLT, XPath, XQuery. It has a number of useful features which were needed in our projects (validation against XML Schema, visualisation through customizable XSLT in all parts of the system, sound recording etc). Recent versions are tightly integrated with the BaseX database which makes it easy to set up local instances. We also have implemented versioning. It comes with a tokenEditor that allows to furnish corpora with dictionary IDs. Recently we have been working on an Application Creator module which helps to create web applications by means of a very simple wizard.
>
> Due to time pressure, VLE is still scarcely documented although we have been working on this. It is freely available. If you want to try it, get in touch. I am happy to help. VLE is an ongoing project.
>
> All the best
>
> Charly
> ________________________________________________
> Karlheinz Moerth
> Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities
> Austrian Academy of Sciences
> Sonnenfelsgasse 19/2nd floor
> 1010 Wien
> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B43%201%2051581-2220" value="+431515812220">+43 1 51581-2220
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Piotr Banski
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:22 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question
>
> I have worked with FLEx and FLEx-generated XML, first preparing a large
> corpus-derived dictionary for FLEx ingestion and then iterating on that.
> It can be done with only a minor headache as you learn the underlying
> format and then e.g. discover the differences between particular versions.
>
> I don't really see an ontological platform for comparing FLEx vs. TEI.
> FLEx is a 'machine`, TEI is a metaformat. I'd take FLEx for
> lexicographic work and then worry about potential export to TEI (or
> rather transformation from FLEx export). Or even attempt to go both
> ways, if the initial data are in TEI, but then, maintaining references
> could be a challenge.
>
> I have planned to check out the Viennese Lexicographic Editor[1], and
> even managed to run it under Linux, but got stuck afterwards. It is
> definitely worth trying for some lexicographic tasks, especially when
> it's gotten more documentation.
>
> [1] http://www.oeaw.ac.at/acdh/de/vle
>
> Good luck,
>
>    Piotr
>
>
> On 01/11/2017 10:55 PM, Patrick Sahle wrote:
>>
>> I had a similar discussion only today: a colleague wants to create from
>> a 18th century manuscript a multi language lexicon using FieldWorks/FLEx
>> (http://fieldworks.sil.org/). I tried to convince him on the advantages
>> using TEI would have but didn't get through. I see his arguments for an
>> easy to use tool that is established in his field. But I am concerned
>> about the loss of information about the material, visual and structural
>> aspects of the documents. We are now discussing into two directions:
>> - would it be possible to convert from FLEx to (sufficiently information
>> rich) TEI in the end? Mainly for interoperability reasons ...
>> - would it be wise to go from TEI to FLEx (keeping more information from
>> the documents, but working without an easy editing tool)?
>>
>> Any experiences on this around?
>>
>> Best, Patrick
>>
>> Am 11.01.2017 um 16:37 schrieb Paul Schaffner:
>>> Hi all, this is not strictly TEI, as you'll see, but I suspect there are
>>> a number of lexicographers here. I was asked yesterday by someone
>>> compiling a Latin dictionary if there was a standard (perhaps
>>> database-type) piece of application software in which to compile, edit,
>>> and search it. He is (sigh) using Microsoft Word at the moment, and has
>>> rejected the usual filemaker-type databases as not sufficiently
>>> supportive of word-processor-type formatting (multiple languages and
>>> fonts, etc.) I of course pointed out that the chief desideratum for
>>> future functionality was to distinguish unambiguously between different
>>> structurally distinct pieces of each entry; that XML was a good vehicle
>>> for recording the sort of mixture of fielded, normalized and free-form
>>> text typical of dictionaries; that XML could be entered, searched, and
>>> edited in any number of applications, from Access forms to simple text
>>> editors; and that TEI did have a functional dictionaries module which
>>> was worth considering. I am investigating further as to what he actually
>>> hopes to do with the data, which makes a big difference.
>>>
>>> But in the meantime: is there in fact a popular software choice amongst
>>> working lexicographers? (To the extent that anything used by
>>> lexicographers could be called 'popular'!)
>>>
>>> pfs
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apl. Prof. Dr. Patrick Sahle
>> Koordinierungsstelle Digital Humanities der Nordrhein-Westfälischen
>> Akademie der Wissenschaften
>> Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH) <http://www.cceh.uni-koeln.de/>
>> Data Center for the Humanities <http://www.dch.uni-koeln.de/>
>> DiXiT ITN <http://www.dixit.uni-koeln.de/>
>> Institut für Dokumentologie und Editorik <http://www.i-d-e.de>
>>
>> Postanschrift: Cologne Center for eHumanities (CCeH), Universität zu
>> Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 Köln
>> Büro: Meister-Ekkehart-Str. 11, Raum 2.04; Telefon: <a href="tel:%2B49%20-%20%280%29221%20-%20470%203894" value="+492214703894">+49 - (0)221 - 470 3894
>
> --
> Piotr Bański, Ph.D.
> Senior Researcher,
> Institut für Deutsche Sprache,
> R5 6-13
> 68-161 Mannheim, Germany

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:45:43 +0000
From:    James Cummings <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
> of a new subdivision of its own?

I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion.  None of
the examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional
sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division
(also maybe without a head).  In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque
example I would say that a that the prologue and comments after
are both separate sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a
division consisting of 3 child divs.

In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra
concluding paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but
that she doesn't want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's
examples I would choose solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I
thought they were a concluding subdivision (sans heading) or a
separate section (sans heading).

There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and
divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but
the content of it.  I don't necessarily see a direct relationship
between an intellectual division and the format of how something
originally appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side
of a pot.

-James

--
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [hidden email]

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:49:26 +0100
From:    "Janusz S. Bien" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: Dictionaries, practical question

Quote/Cytat - "Mörth, Karlheinz" <[hidden email]> (Thu 12
Jan 2017 04:31:49 PM CET):

> Hi Paul,
>
> There is an incomplete but helpful list on Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_writing_system
>
> Are you aware of the following very interesting document? It was
> created as part of the ENEL (European Network of e-Lexicography)
> Cost Action by very experienced experts in the field (Abel, Krek,
> Tiberius): Bibliography –Dictionary Writing Systems (DWS) & related
> software
> http://www.elexicography.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bibliography_DWS_CQS_v7_web.pdf

I was not aware despite the fact that I'm a member of ENEL WG 2.

Listing on the same level Emacs and e.g. TLex is definitely very
interesting :-)

Best regards

Janusz

--
Prof. dr hab. Janusz S. Bień -  Uniwersytet Warszawski (Katedra
Lingwistyki Formalnej)
Prof. Janusz S. Bień - University of Warsaw (Formal Linguistics Department)
[hidden email], [hidden email], http://fleksem.klf.uw.edu.pl/~jsbien/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:08:15 -0500
From:    Mark Sgambettera <[hidden email]>
Subject: Remove from listserv

Please remove my email address from the listserv.

Thank you,

Mark Sgambettera

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:08:53 +0000
From:    Philippine Waisvisz <[hidden email]>
Subject: <no subject>

unsubscribe

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:19:50 +0000
From:    Philippine Waisvisz <[hidden email]>
Subject: unsubscribe


------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:29:46 -0500
From:    Hugh Cayless <[hidden email]>
Subject: How to leave the list

Since we've had a recent spate of these messages (which don't remove you
unless the list owner happens to see them). Try visiting
https://listserv.brown.edu/archives/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=tei-l&A=1 instead and
do what you need to there.

All the best,
Hugh

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:33:55 -0500
From:    "Mylonas, Elli" <[hidden email]>
Subject: spam on the TEI list

Dear list members:

The TEI list administrators do their best in the face of increased spam
requests to keep spammers off the list. Occasionally, we fail, and in that
case we remove the spammer as quickly as possible. I see that some of you
are trying to unsubscribe, possibly because of the three spam messages that
were recently sent out. We have removed the spammer and will increase our
vigilance.

If you really don't want to receive TEI list messages any more, you can
send an email to
 [hidden email] <[hidden email]>

with the no subject line and the message body

unsubscribe TEI-L

with apologies, Elli Mylonas and Syd Bauman

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:43:31 -0800
From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

On 2017-01-12 07:45 AM, James Cummings wrote:

> In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding
> paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't
> want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's examples I would choose
> solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding
> subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading).

This is a requirement imposed by this Schematron rule in the jTEI schema:

<constraintSpec ident="jtei.sch-div-head" scheme="isoschematron">
               <constraint>
                 <sch:rule context="tei:div[not(@type =
('editorialIntroduction', 'bibliography', 'abstract',
'acknowledgements'))]">
                   <sch:assert test="tei:head">
                     A <sch:name/> must contain a head.
                   </sch:assert>
                 </sch:rule>
               </constraint>
             </constraintSpec>

As you can see, we require a head element for any div which doesn't fall
into a number of specific categories. Those types of div perform
specific roles in the article structure. Our assumption when creating
the schema was that the body of an academic article would conform to the
relatively conventional structure that Michael outlined, and all the
articles so far have, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to
change it. There are implications for processing into ODT and PDF, as
well as ingestion into the revues.org system.

Marjorie, could you raise a ticket for this on GitHub:

<https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues>

with [jTEI] in the title, and if possible provide us with a simple
outline of the structure you need?

Since it'll take time to add the required support to the processing
pathways, is there a way you can get around this temporarily that won't
be too annoying?

Cheers,
Martin

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:18:35 +0100
From:    Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

Hello!

How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space before the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a name?), or sometimes nothing particular.

@James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is that I have to...

@Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make it more evident.



----- Mail original -----
De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
À: [hidden email]
Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00
Objet: Re: div and p

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> div,p are quite common in the wild.

Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
common”.

Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?
Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
common” mean, quantitatively?

And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
of a new subdivision of its own?


********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:26:26 +0100
From:    Piotr Bański <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

Hi James and all,

Been watching this conversation as a more-or-less outsider to the topic,
but now I can't help but wonder: are you guys talking about some
universal property of text, which, one would think, is a creation of the
amazing human mind, capable of calculating the changing distance between
stars and counting angels spinning on the tip of a boson, and, at the
same time -- you seem to be saying -- incapable of conceiving a textual
structure where a few well-rounded sections are bracketed with several
paragraphs on both ends? Old Plato sends you his love, I'm sure, but
we've been through postmodernism and are out of his cave by now... ;-)

Legacy is legacy, and a glorified kludge is still a kludge, so let's not
pretend 80/20 % is 100/0... 80/20 is often enough of a reason to shut
one's eyes and swallow the pill, for the good of the system.

(And if 80/20 is not enough of a reason, then shrug and edit the ODD...
Seriously: at this point, the ODD becomes an interpretive manifesto,
potentially much stronger and far-reaching than a single e-mail thread.)

I recall the momentary feeling of terror that I experienced at the most
recent TEI-MM when someone in all seriousness mentioned OHCO as an axiom
of their current theorising (it was almost as strong as my dismay two
years ago in Lyon, when I heard someone citing a 30-year-old example of
overlapping <s> and <q> as a new discovery -- but I digress). Without
the old observations and the simple(r) theories/models formulated years
ago, we wouldn't be now where we are -- because simplification +
iterative tinkering is the right strategy to deal with complexity -- but
why claim that there is anything universal about them. I'm not arguing
that the content model of div should necessarily get loosened, but let's
recognize it for what it is, an 80/20 strategy, which in this case is
possibly also roughly 90 % intellectual and 10 % pragmatic, and it's
good that Paul teaches and discusses kludges, that's the pragmatic way
to deal with the issue.

Best regards,

   Piotr



On 01/12/2017 04:45 PM, James Cummings wrote:
> On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
>> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
>> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
>> of a new subdivision of its own?
>
> I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion.  None of the
> examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional
> sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division (also
> maybe without a head).  In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque example I would
> say that a that the prologue and comments after are both separate
> sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a division consisting of 3
> child divs.
>
> In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding
> paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't
> want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's examples I would choose
> solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding
> subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading).
>
> There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and
> divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but the
> content of it.  I don't necessarily see a direct relationship between an
> intellectual division and the format of how something originally
> appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side of a pot.
>
> -James
>

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:05:40 -0800
From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently
> using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running
> into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem,
> they just make it more evident.

It worries me a bit that the jTEI schema makes what is already awkward
(the need to wrap trailing <p>s in an anonymous <div>) actually
impossible (because it insists on a <head>), now that we know that for
French historians, and presumably many other disciplines, are trained to
structure documents in exactly this way.

I'm glad you're using jTEI, though, and the more it's used (not just for
the journal), the better it will get if we respond to these things.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2017-01-12 09:18 AM, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Hello!
>
> How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm
> (and not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know -
> it might be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art
> of writing" I have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a
> chapter, you must offer a short abstract of the topics and
> conclusions of the current chapter, and offer a "transition" from
> those topics to topic of the next chapter. My PhD certainly follows
> this rule, as did my supervisor's dissertation. The typographic
> conventions may vary: a bit more space before the conclusive
> paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have asterisks in
> the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a name?), or
> sometimes nothing particular.
>
> @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome
> is that I have to...
>
> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently
> using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running
> into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem,
> they just make it more evident.
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original ----- De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen"
> <[hidden email]> À: [hidden email] Envoyé: Jeudi
> 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00 Objet: Re: div and p
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
>> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a
>> source of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual
>> examples of div,p are quite common in the wild.
>
> Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses since
> 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples we
> had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised to
> hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
> common”.
>
> Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers? Of a
> thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
> paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite common”
> mean, quantitatively?
>
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but not
> part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part of a new
> subdivision of its own?
>
>
> ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
>

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:05:47 -0500
From:    Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: div and p

How common? At a guess? Maybe between 1 and 3% have
some sort of div,p problem.

Typographic signals?  Frequently none, depends on the
nature of the book and of the div.

Strategies? I should add a fifth one: demoting the
subordinate divs to something less than divs, e.g.
numbered or labeled paragraphs, or list items. And
a sixth: breaking the superordinate div into three
divs, "stuff before the analytical bit," "the
analytical bit," and "stuff after the analytical bit."

Examples? They're hard to search for, once successfully
subsumed by one or more of my four (now six) strategies.
The commonest fall into a few categories. E.g.:

In both argumentative / polemical / hortatory
and narrative books, chapters are often subdivided,
but the last subdivision often strays off-topic,
or moves almost invisibly into a general conclusion,
without the latter being typographically marked.

<div><head>The problems with regicide</head>
  <div><head>1. It's illegal</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  </div>
  <div><head>2. It's unscriptural</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  </div>
  <div<head>3. It's imprudent</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  <p/>
-->  [</div>] <-----
  <p>All in all, regicide is a bad idea, in fact
  it's one of the worst ideas. I had a dream the
  other night about bad ideas, let me tell you:
  self-driving cars. flavored water. uncomforable
  seats. There are a lot of bad ideas around.
  But regicide is the worst.</p>
</div>

This final bit can also turn into a prayer, or
a peroration, or an apology, or something that
has no obvious category -- except that it does
not belong to the last subdiv in the chapter.

A second variety is typical of documentary anthologies,
e.g. "The letter of Col. Smith from Ireland, together
with the King's proclamation and Parliament's reply"
In one or more of these announced documents, or between
them, or after the last one, the editor might well
suddenly start talking, narrating, or opining, without
much of a clear break from the document. Most of
these, but not all, are dealt with by my 'raisins
in oatmeal' floating text strategy, albeit often with
the dish composed of 90% raisins and only 5% devoted to
the oatmeal matrix.

<div type="collection">
  <div type="letter">...</div>
  <div type="proclamation">...</div>
  <div type="reply">...</div>
  <p>And after this the matter was far from settled...</p>
</div>

A third variety might be called the central-focused
div, in which the first few paragraphs introduce
an issue, followed by a headed subdiv, often formatted
differently, that addresses it in detail, before
yielding again to an undivved set of paragraphs.

<div><head>Baptists and Presbyterians</head>
<p>Let me tell you about B and P.</p>
<p>They may pretend to be different but they're both
the devil's spawn.</p>
<p>In fact, as soon as you compare their doctrines,
they turn out to be virtually indistinguishable.</p>
   <div type="comparison">
   <head>P and B Compared</head>
     <div type="doctrine">
     <head>Salvation</head>
        <div>
        <head>The P doctrine</head>
        </div>
        <div>
        <head>The B doctrine</head>
        </div>
     </div>
     <div type="doctrine">
     <head>Sacrament</head>
       <div>
       <head>The P doctrine</head>
       </div>
       <div>
       <head>The B doctrine</head>
       </div>
     </div>
   </div>
<p>So you see, they're not so different after all,
and once you compare them both to True Catholic
Doctrine, both are clearly faces of the same Heresy.</p>
<p>So I suggest burning them all, don't you agree?</p>
</div>

Here's an actual example of the first type, more or
less (apologies for the upper-cased SGML element names...):

Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26917.0001.001?view=toc

<DIV1>
<HEAD>XX. DIRECTIONS FOR CONFIRMATION In a state of Grace.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="direction">
<HEAD>DIRECT. I. Be sure that the Foundation be well laid, both in your
Heads and Hearts; or else you can ne|ver attain to Confirmation, nor be
savingly built up.</HEAD>
<P>TO this end you must know <HI>what the Foundation is, and how it must
be soundly laid</HI>. The <HI>Foundation ...</P>
<P>...</P>
</DIV2>
* * *
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="direction">
<HEAD>DIRECT. XX. Live as with Death continually in your eye, and spend
every day in serious preparation for it, that when it cometh, you may
find your work dispatcht; and may not then cry out in vain to God to try
you once again.</HEAD>
<P>PRomise not your selves long life: Think not of death as at many
years distance, but as hard at hand. Think what will then be need|ful to
your peace and comfort, and order all your life accordingly, and prepare
...</P>
</DIV2>
<P>And now I have given you all these <HI>Directi|ons</HI>, I shall only
request you in the close, that you will set your very hearts to the
daily serious pra|ctise of them; For there is no other way for a ripe
confirmed state of Grace: And as ever you regard the glory of God, the
honour of your Religion, the welfare of the Church and those about you,
and the <HI>living</HI> and <HI>dying</HI> comforts of your selves; O do
not sluggishly rest in an In|fant state of Grace! Did you but know how a
<HI>weak</HI> and <HI>strong</HI> Faith differ, and how a <HI>weak</HI>
and a found <HI>Confirmed Christian</HI> differ, as to the ho|nour of
God, and the good of others, and especi|ally to themselves, both in
<HI>life</HI> and <HI>death</HI>, it would quickly awaken you to a
cheerful diligence, for so high and excellent an end. Did you but well
understand the wrong that Christ and the Gos|pel have sustained in the
World, yea in <HI>England</HI>, by <HI>weak, diseased, distempered</HI>
Christians, your hearts would bleed, and with shame and grief, it would
be your secret and open lamentation. Stir up then the Grace that is
given you, and use Christs means, and do your best, and you will find
that Christ is not an insufficient Physician, nor an uneffectual
Saviour, or an empty Foun|tain; but that he is filled with all the
fulness of God, and hath Spirit and life to communicate to his Members,
<HI>Zech.</HI> 12.8. and that there is no want which he cannot supply,
and no corruption or temptation, which his Grace is not sufficient to
overcome, <HI>John</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9. <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.4,
6. <HI>Col.</HI> 3.1, 3, 4.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>

pfs

ps  This is not intended as an argument for p,div = div,p equality of
treatment,
nor against it for that matter.



On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, at 12:18, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
> Hello!
>
> How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and
> not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might
> be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I
> have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must
> offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current
> chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next
> chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's
> dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space
> before the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to
> have asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has
> a name?), or sometimes nothing particular.
>
> @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is
> that I have to...
>
> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using
> it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this
> issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make
> it more evident.
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
> À: [hidden email]
> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00
> Objet: Re: div and p
>
> > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> > div,p are quite common in the wild.
>
> Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
> since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
> we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
> to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
> common”.
>
> Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?
> Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
> paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
> common” mean, quantitatively?
>
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
> of a new subdivision of its own?
>
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Library Production Service
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 16:23:24 -0500
From:    Robert Foley <[hidden email]>
Subject: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Hi Martin,

We are creating a digital version in TEI of a historic Fairfield,
Connecticut merchant account book and are looking for best practices for
the ODD and the tag set.  We began by creating our own markup using the
TEI, but meanwhile we just met Kathryn Tomasek of Wheaton College at the
recent AHA history conference who suggested we use 'MEDEA' the Modeling
semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts.

Could you please direct us to the MEDEA codebook, ODD, sample template to
ensure that we have the correct markup of this already developed TEI
project?

Thank you.

Robert Foley
Research Historian
Bridgeport Digital Humanities Initiative
http://bridgeporthistory.us/

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:10:28 -0800
From:    Martin Holmes <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: MEDEA. Modeling semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts

Hi Robert,

I don't know MEDEA myself, but it seems to be here:

<https://medea.hypotheses.org/>

It appears to be more of a working group than a standard; I don't see
any ODDs or schemas on their site. The only detailed work I know in this
area is Kathryn's:

<http://jtei.revues.org/895>

because I was working on the journal when it was published. That article
links to her ODD and schemas here:

<http://www.customization.encodinghfrs.org/>

Hope this helps,
Martin

On 2017-01-12 01:23 PM, Robert Foley wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> We are creating a digital version in TEI of a historic Fairfield,
> Connecticut merchant account book and are looking for best practices for
> the ODD and the tag set.  We began by creating our own markup using the
> TEI, but meanwhile we just met Kathryn Tomasek of Wheaton College at the
> recent AHA history conference who suggested we use 'MEDEA' the Modeling
> semantically Enriched Digital Edition of Accounts.
>
> Could you please direct us to the MEDEA codebook, ODD, sample template
> to ensure that we have the correct markup of this already developed TEI
> project?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Robert Foley
> Research Historian
> Bridgeport Digital Humanities Initiative
> http://bridgeporthistory.us/
>
>

------------------------------

End of TEI-L Digest - 11 Jan 2017 to 12 Jan 2017 (#2017-10)
***********************************************************